I have been finished 1st year in Charlotte School of Law and I took my chance for applying transfer. I have been accepted by Depaul Law but I am now wondering if I should go to Depaul Law. Since I searched much information online and different people's reviews messed me up. Here, I respectfully ask for suggestions, should I stay in Charlotte Law or go to Depaul Law.

Here is some basic information:Charlotte Law: no schoolarship, unranked school, since it is a new law school just got fully accreditation on 2011, located in Charlotte which is not a big cityDepaul Law: I got $16,000 scholarship total for next two years, ranked#89 and down to #103 this year (but someone told me the rank may change dramatically every year, especially for the school lower than #50), located in Chicago.

Note: do not take too much consideration on the schoolarship, since I got the fully support from my grandfather.

My sincere advice would be to leave law school. Both of these schools have truly horrible placement numbers. USNWR rank means absolutely nothing at this level. The only thing that matters is job placement.

If you insist on attending one of the two, we'll need to know where you have ties, where you want to work, and what kind of work you want (be realistic). Please tell me that you didn't just show up in South Carolina without substantial preexisting ties to the state. If a JD from that school can get you a job at all, it's only going to place you locally, and that itself will be highly dependent on whether you have prior ties to this ultra-insular state. DePaul will be a similar story. If you're not from either area, run from law school. And it would be best if you did that regardless.

Thank you, this really help. My family has ties in both places. But I am thinking is it better to go to a big city like Chicago, which may have bigger market and more opportunities?

Ti Malice wrote:My sincere advice would be to leave law school. Both of these schools have truly horrible placement numbers. USNWR rank means absolutely nothing at this level. The only thing that matters is job placement.

If you insist on attending one of the two, we'll need to know where you have ties, where you want to work, and what kind of work you want (be realistic). Please tell me that you didn't just show up in South Carolina without substantial preexisting ties to the state. If a JD from that school can get you a job at all, it's only going to place you locally, and that itself will be highly dependent on whether you have prior ties to this ultra-insular state. DePaul will be a similar story. If you're not from either area, run from law school. And it would be best if you did that regardless.

I don't think either is a good choice, but gun to head, if I HAD to choose between the two...I guess Depaul. Their employment numbers are slightly better, although still atrocious. Chicago has more opportunities, sure...but there are also multiple better law schools there, and plenty of people who want to work in Chicago who will gobble up those opportunities long before you get to them. You're also going to spend more on COL in Chicago.

But yeah, really, both are bad options. This is like asking if it's better to hit by a car going 60 mph or 65 mph.

This person can't write anything even vaguely resembling grammatical English, but two ABA law schools are perfectly happy to take his or her money. Hopefully bar examiners will keep this individual from being let loose upon an unsuspecting public armed with a license to practice law, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that either.

Paul Campos wrote:This person can't write anything even vaguely resembling grammatical English, but two ABA law schools are perfectly happy to take his or her money. Hopefully bar examiners will keep this individual from being let loose upon an unsuspecting public armed with a license to practice law, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that either.

With respect, your penchant for harassing potential JD students on the internet about their choices seems increasingly inappropriate. I agree with the problems you are outlining, just as we've all read your book and nodded along, but this is just rude. Maybe you are projecting from the painful illiteracy of your own students at CU? Bad semester? Oh, woe is the overeducated legal academic forced by the weight of his own pervesity to assault the grammar of a 24 year old student! I would stick to blogging on ITLSS over harassment.

OP, I would probably leave law school in your position and save your grandparents' money. Use it to start a business. If you must choose, DePaul is the better selection: at least they offer some scholarship and have more established alumni to speak of (although I doubt that will help you). I sincerely wish you had asked a year ago so we could tell you to retake the LSAT and reapply. Best of luck to you

Paul Campos wrote:This person can't write anything even vaguely resembling grammatical English, but two ABA law schools are perfectly happy to take his or her money. Hopefully bar examiners will keep this individual from being let loose upon an unsuspecting public armed with a license to practice law, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on that either.

Wait, this is the real Paul Campos? I assumed it was like choosing the name Dr. Dre. If that's the case, professor:1. This hurts your ethos. It's hard to resist calling you bro or dude when you present yourself like a 20 year old.2. You can't really think this is an effective rhetorical technique, so now you're just being an asshole.3. If your point is to be a voice crying out in the wilderness, you do you. But if you want to make humans' lives a little bit better, some empathy and consideration will give you more effective results.

This person can't write in English. At all. This isn't a case of a sloppy mistake or three, but rather an inability to actually write in the English language. I very much doubt English is the OP's first language. Now I'm all for people for whom English is a second language (I'm actually such a person) going to American law schools, as long as they become reasonably fluent in English before doing so. Is this now a controversial position? Should we be providing "access" (usually at taxpayer expense, although apparently not in this case) to law school to people who aren't even fluent in English?

Paul Campos wrote:This person can't write in English. At all. This isn't a case of a sloppy mistake or three, but rather an inability to actually write in the English language. I very much doubt English is the OP's first language. Now I'm all for people for whom English is a second language (I'm actually such a person) going to American law schools, as long as they become reasonably fluent in English before doing so. Is this now a controversial position? Should we be providing "access" (usually at taxpayer expense, although apparently not in this case) to law school to people who aren't even fluent in English?

Okay, after rereading the posts, OP's English is much worse than I initially though. I've gotten used to phasing out ESL grammar from working with developers in India and Europe on a daily basis for two years.

kappycaft1 wrote:To be honest, I was about to point out the OP's atrocious grammar if Campos hadn't. Even if it is the Internet, one should still be able to use proper grammar if they're asking about their future on a law school forum.

(OP, are you a native English speaker?)*EDIT: Haha Campos asked the same thing.

+1

He did it in an overly dickish way and that was unneccesary but I also agree with his overall main point here.

I think that many of us have more or less 'phased out' poor grammar. And I don't mean poor grammar as used by ESL learners, but poor grammar as used by native speakers. Our expectations have just lowered, and so rather than telling such and such person to improve their grammar before even considering law school, we accept the poor grammar and just tell them to score high on the LSAT, as after all, the portion that requires adequate grammar isn't scored. And technically speaking, one can get a high GPA without a strong command of grammar - just major in a foreign language! Now, this person will undoubtedly struggle with the writing sample, so it's doubtful they'll make HYS, but they've got a chance everywhere else.

Anyway, in the case of an ESL student, I say this person should be admitted to law school so long as their command of the language is adequate. They need not be expressive - just adequate. And if their command is inadequate prior to law school, then I'd hope they work on their command before law school begins as well as throughout it. No doubt this person will struggle in law school, but I'd say that as long as they're bright and are capable of quickly improving, let them in. This is a big assumption, and may not hold in most cases, but there's no sense in admitting someone who just has no hope of using English well enough within... a year or so.

Last edited by Otunga on Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kappycaft1 wrote:To be honest, I was about to point out the OP's atrocious grammar if Campos hadn't. Even if it is the Internet, one should still be able to use proper grammar if they're asking about their future on a law school forum.

(OP, are you a native English speaker?)*EDIT: Haha Campos asked the same thing.

+1

He did it in an overly dickish way and that was unneccesary but I also agree with his overall main point here.

I thought the same thing, and was surprised to see Campos taken to task on that. The dickish-ness seemed more directed at the schools than the applicant though, to me at least.

kappycaft1 wrote:To be honest, I was about to point out the OP's atrocious grammar if Campos hadn't. Even if it is the Internet, one should still be able to use proper grammar if they're asking about their future on a law school forum.

(OP, are you a native English speaker?)*EDIT: Haha Campos asked the same thing.

+1

He did it in an overly dickish way and that was unneccesary but I also agree with his overall main point here.

I thought the same thing, and was surprised to see Campos taken to task on that. The dickish-ness seemed more directed at the schools than the applicant though, to me at least.

There's a kid trolling on the internet because he's asocial and aspie, and then there's a law professor trolling law students he should be advising/counseling (if anything), even if the law professor is asocial, aspie, and affiliates himself with Cato toolbags. There are better ways to prove a point than this random thread for an academic of his stature. The tremendous respect we have for his work narrows when it is rehashed and revisited to mock individuals seeking advice.

We all know OP shouldnt be in law school, especially not these law schools. Its the first statement we've all made. Being well liked is not a trait all of us aspire to, and blunt wisdom has its utility, but this just seemed spiteful.